theJournier Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 So whilst looking a the encyclopedia... deciding what to arm my fighter. I couldn't help but browse at the AA missiles... I found some discrepancies. The AIM 120B is actually the only one that's fairly accurate with the stats being capable of Mach 4 and capable of going 55km. The AIM 120C is shown as having little to no difference from the B, however. It should say 100-110 kilometers. And the Pheonix is shown as only Mach 3 capable, and a range of 150KM... when in fact it's Mach 5 capable and a range of 190 KM. The Sidewinder (9P) is shown of having Mach 2, but it's really 2.5, and the aim 9P and 9M should be equal in range maybe different in accuracy.
pepin1234 Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 :D did you found these only? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Frostie Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Welcome to the forums. "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 'Red 5'. Lord Flashheart 51st PVO "Bisons" - 100 KIAP Regiment Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org
Buzpilot Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Lol, that reminds me of 'old' days, when I discovered the G-limits on american fighters, I made sarchastic comments in here for months, before i cooled down :) i5 4670 - Sabertooth Z87- GTX Titan - Dell U3011 30" - 2x8GB RAM 1800 - Samsung 840 EVO 512GB SSD - Warthog HOTAS - CH Pro pedals - TrackIR5 - Win7 64bit EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE :thumbup:
Nealius Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 I stopped using the encyclopedia when I noticed that the game had objects that didn't exist in the encyclopedia and the encyclopedia had objects that didn't exist in the game.
pepin1234 Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 I stopped using the encyclopedia when I noticed that the game had objects that didn't exist in the encyclopedia . That's right and the encyclopedia had objects that didn't exist in the game. Which of them didn't exist? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Davis0079 Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Look harder...the encyclopedia is far more inaccurate then what you have currently found... and you say a 120c should go 110km....68 miles....boy, i sure hope you have paperwork to back that up...they have been arguing over the missile ranges since 1985...now that your here you can set this whole thing straight....could also be useful to the boys over at the BMS forums to see these documents also.... It only takes two things to fly, Airspeed and Money.
cichlidfan Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Which of them didn't exist? The one that comes immediately to mind is the big long Russian fuel truck (I forget the designation), that I have been wanting to blow up since the first day I looked at the encyclopedia. ;) ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1 :thumbup:
Bourrinopathe Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 They probably still don't have a big enough fireball for that thing to explode politely. Mysterious ATZ-60: The Farm A picture is wrong too. But the most confusing thing is that the names in the encyclopedia are different from the names in the mission editor. A very inspired lad has edited a useful reference here. >>> direct link <<< name + corresponding picture = :beer: /// ВКБ: GF Pro MkII+MCG Pro/GF MkII+SCG L/Black Mamba MkIII/Gladiator/T-Rudder MkII | X-55 Rhino throttle/Saitek Throttle Quadrant | OpenTrack+UTC /// ZULU +4 /// /// "THE T3ASE": i9 9900K | 64 GB DDR4 | RTX 2080ti OC | 2 TB NVMe SSDs, 1 TB SATA SSD, 12 TB HDDs | Gigabyte DESIGNARE mobo ///
theJournier Posted January 26, 2014 Author Posted January 26, 2014 Look harder...the encyclopedia is far more inaccurate then what you have currently found... and you say a 120c should go 110km....68 miles....boy, i sure hope you have paperwork to back that up...they have been arguing over the missile ranges since 1985...now that your here you can set this whole thing straight....could also be useful to the boys over at the BMS forums to see these documents also.... Actually I was a little wrong... And I was going by websites that specified the differences by the modifications made. A more accurate description would involve several variable. 1.) rocket engine burn times. How long can it last. 2.) exhaust speed/mass/volumes. Which is why all fuels aren't equal. 3.) altitude (a missle fired at lower levels generally won't go as far as one shot from higher up). Mach- is a variable speed... And Mach 4 at 1,000 is much faster than Mach 4 at 30,000. However there's less drag at high altitudes... So the missile can go over Mach 4. 4.)drag aim-120c should have less drag... Smaller fins. 5.)and launch platforms speed. And aircrafts like the f-16 will have longer range, than a sam which uses the same missile. As the rocket will have to accelerate less to reach its top speed. Also there currently 4 versions of aim-120c. C4-c5-c6-c7. With later having the latest tech and improved rocket motor of aim-120c's. There's an aim-120D which will rival the Phoenix's specs scheduled to go the military soon.
Davis0079 Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 without documents other then wikipedia, this is a mute point.....like I said, missile range is a topic that is as old as combat sims themselves....real range and p/k data is not available and any real information is either a leak in classified data or just one persons opinion....I'm guessing that under threat of death you are not leaking classified info and that the info you posted is downgrades specs released to the public on the wiki threads....no matter what the case, i can say that the aim120c ingame does not have exact flight charactoristics or flight data...no matter how close they get it...until the 120 is so obsolete that you can buy them at the local gunshops and flea markets, it will never be true to life in this game... ...the best thing to do is not study real data, but to study the data (may be real) that the game was made with and the missile that is actually ingame...learn the tools you are playing with, instead of their real life counterparts....after all, it is just a game (?)... It only takes two things to fly, Airspeed and Money.
theJournier Posted January 26, 2014 Author Posted January 26, 2014 But this is a game based on reality. If I wanted to something else, I could play OVER G fighters, and less realistically Ace Combat. Furthermore, there are reasons why we can't fly the F-35 and F-22 in this game... because it's too classified to create. It's details are so classified that even a FC3 DCS cannot be created. I doubt any Low-Observable planes could even have a DCS, except maybe the F-117 and low-observable tech Actually the Aim 120B & C-4,C-5 are all outdated and being phased out by the D and C-7 versions of the missile, D version is probably going to push out the C-6 version as well. Also they aren't so classified that you don't know how the missile exactly works (the reason it last so long is that it can throttle is fuel consumption, there actually detailed schematics), what kind of warhead is present. Outdated and declassified, doesn't always mean legal to own. :doh:And just face it the encyclopedia needs some serious TLC it's even missing weapons.
joey45 Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 You will never get proper data on missiles and they will never be modelled properly in games such as DCS. The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. "Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.." https://ko-fi.com/joey45
theJournier Posted January 27, 2014 Author Posted January 27, 2014 You will never get proper data on missiles and they will never be modelled properly in games such as DCS. Have you tried? There are some credible source for this type of data. After that all you have to do is apply some rocketry principles and viola you have an accurately modeled weapon. Which is what I imagine ED has done. Granted, maybe a little off, but certainly not off by a mile like the encyclopedia is. Some good sources, show rocket motor dimensions. http://www.atk.com/products-services/ Just search for Sidewinders, AMRAAMs, Mavericks, etc. and they'll give info said rockets. You can Google weights and find launch weights, they are all fairly consistent. TBH, it's not that there isn't good missle data out there, because there is. It's just not palatable to the average joe. We like seeing optimal ranges, and speeds. Not rocket sizes & fuel type. Up until recently I didn't know these rockets could throttle their speed though stages and burst prolonging their range. In other words they could go more than Mach 5+ it just wouldn't give the optimum range.
Recommended Posts